Jun 20, 2022Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
The article is telling in another way. It says colleagues blocked the appointment because “it would have left him dangerously exposed”, not because, say, it would have been improper and unethical.
In other words, their ethic is “do whatever you want, but don’t get caught”.
That this is true is entirely evident through even the most superficial analysis of what goes on daily.
Little wonder everything is such a mess. These people don’t take their positions seriously.
Jun 20, 2022Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
An old salty cop friend of mine told me when you can’t quite put the crime together, always remember it always comes down to two things …. “ money or monkey or both”. In this case both😉
Jun 20, 2022Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
"The story was breaking just as Boris Johnson had arrived for his second surprise visit to Kiev."
Just a coincidence I'm sure. I said long ago that Johnson would be the easiest PM to compromise, I bet they have a lot of dirt on him, I think this is why he became a warmonger.
Jun 20, 2022·edited Jun 20, 2022Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
I'm puzzled how these go "missing" from the internet when Wayback machine is available.
My understanding, from working in web in a former life, that it's in the Interwebs forever....But I did just have a quick squiz-and its definitely not available without some serious digging!! Someone on the dark web would likely find it 10mins, for a price😉
But if you get a Wayback toolbar button you can save as you see something with two clicks and when the saved page is removed Wayback window pops up asking if you want to see the archived page IF someone saved it.
Excuses for not saving are weak, nothing I have saved since 2002 has ever been pulled from Wayback though I hear complaints about vanishing content it is NEVER from anyone who saved the said material just folks assume someone else must have saved it. Many things we would assume have been saved still appear on the web with no archive copies. I save dozens of pages a day that should be preserved but nobody has. The collective Substack writers I follow are terrible about archiving & my saves are first saves 99% of the time even if it's days later with hundreds of likes on the piece. j/s
Good Wayback travelers can find material if the original URL is shared and are more than happy to hunt for missing material. Saves with cookie tracking extensions are harder to locate but please do not blame Wayback for what can't be found.
archive.org does delete some records, legitimately by author request (like every record of mercola.com when the government threatened him,) and highly likely when under pressure from authorities.
it also doesn't archive everything, either. I was shocked (and enthused) to find two older versions of websites I had up on there. but they didn't archive the latest versions before one domain expired and the other one was taken down by the free hosting service because it got hacked.
I wish I knew what the criteria is for what they do and don't archive. I do know that I did submit the two sites of mine to search engine crawlers. they were put up in 2009 and were gone from the regular interwebs by somewhere in 2011.
if you have an original URL, sometimes archive.ph has it stored from before deletion. but they are a user-submitted archive and don't automatically crawl the web to get their data.
Most of Wayback archive is user submitted and crawls for updates are seriously limited and always have been. There are sites that ban URL from captures like Canadian Post and MIT who publish a lot of material that cannot be saved in Wayback w full URL bans.
Get a toolbar button which redirects 404 Not Found to saved page IF someone saved it.
The most disturbing part is that when I tell people that shenanigans like this occur on a regular basis, they don’t believe me. After all, if things like this *were* happening, the corporate media would tell them about it. It’s a weird epistemic circle.
You’re absolutely right — the point of the internet is to liberate information, but so many people still live like it’s 1980. I wish people could understand that there’s more to the internet than Wikipedia, Facebook, WebMD, and corporate media websites.
Suspecting that this sort of behavior would greatly accelerate right after the lockdowns started, I've been saving to PDF numerous articles and studies.
Good old newspaper clippings! Don't libraries archive the print versions for a period of time, and are they still archived photographically, and not just digitally?
Likewise, all elections from top executives down to dogcatcher should be 100% paper, locked in secure, unhidden boxes, guarded by at least two independent human agencies 24/7/52, and never touching digital communication means. I am no Luddite; I love ever newer technology, but it will never be secure.
There can be no trust without a secure original *paper* trail.
The article is telling in another way. It says colleagues blocked the appointment because “it would have left him dangerously exposed”, not because, say, it would have been improper and unethical.
In other words, their ethic is “do whatever you want, but don’t get caught”.
That this is true is entirely evident through even the most superficial analysis of what goes on daily.
Little wonder everything is such a mess. These people don’t take their positions seriously.
1984 strikes again... Big Brother never said!
When will they realise that hiding it just makes it worse.
Except we are left to wonder what has been, and will be, successfully hidden still.
*Found* surreptition makes it worse. *Unfound* makes it better for the dishonest.
An old salty cop friend of mine told me when you can’t quite put the crime together, always remember it always comes down to two things …. “ money or monkey or both”. In this case both😉
"The story was breaking just as Boris Johnson had arrived for his second surprise visit to Kiev."
Just a coincidence I'm sure. I said long ago that Johnson would be the easiest PM to compromise, I bet they have a lot of dirt on him, I think this is why he became a warmonger.
I'm puzzled how these go "missing" from the internet when Wayback machine is available.
My understanding, from working in web in a former life, that it's in the Interwebs forever....But I did just have a quick squiz-and its definitely not available without some serious digging!! Someone on the dark web would likely find it 10mins, for a price😉
Things get deleted from Wayback machine. Plus, if you don't have the original link to search on the Wayback machine it's an impossible task.
It may not be completely "missing" but it's very difficult for the average punter to find. And why would they even bother looking.
But if you get a Wayback toolbar button you can save as you see something with two clicks and when the saved page is removed Wayback window pops up asking if you want to see the archived page IF someone saved it.
Excuses for not saving are weak, nothing I have saved since 2002 has ever been pulled from Wayback though I hear complaints about vanishing content it is NEVER from anyone who saved the said material just folks assume someone else must have saved it. Many things we would assume have been saved still appear on the web with no archive copies. I save dozens of pages a day that should be preserved but nobody has. The collective Substack writers I follow are terrible about archiving & my saves are first saves 99% of the time even if it's days later with hundreds of likes on the piece. j/s
Good Wayback travelers can find material if the original URL is shared and are more than happy to hunt for missing material. Saves with cookie tracking extensions are harder to locate but please do not blame Wayback for what can't be found.
See something save something! :~)
https://blog.archive.org/2017/01/25/see-something-save-something/
But the point is, Wayback is digital itself, and so all the State or nefarious actor needs is to hire/bribe/extort the appropriate expertise.
Digital by its nature can never be secure enough that the peeps can trust it.
archive.org does delete some records, legitimately by author request (like every record of mercola.com when the government threatened him,) and highly likely when under pressure from authorities.
it also doesn't archive everything, either. I was shocked (and enthused) to find two older versions of websites I had up on there. but they didn't archive the latest versions before one domain expired and the other one was taken down by the free hosting service because it got hacked.
I wish I knew what the criteria is for what they do and don't archive. I do know that I did submit the two sites of mine to search engine crawlers. they were put up in 2009 and were gone from the regular interwebs by somewhere in 2011.
if you have an original URL, sometimes archive.ph has it stored from before deletion. but they are a user-submitted archive and don't automatically crawl the web to get their data.
Most of Wayback archive is user submitted and crawls for updates are seriously limited and always have been. There are sites that ban URL from captures like Canadian Post and MIT who publish a lot of material that cannot be saved in Wayback w full URL bans.
Get a toolbar button which redirects 404 Not Found to saved page IF someone saved it.
https://blog.archive.org/2017/01/25/see-something-save-something/
The most disturbing part is that when I tell people that shenanigans like this occur on a regular basis, they don’t believe me. After all, if things like this *were* happening, the corporate media would tell them about it. It’s a weird epistemic circle.
You’re absolutely right — the point of the internet is to liberate information, but so many people still live like it’s 1980. I wish people could understand that there’s more to the internet than Wikipedia, Facebook, WebMD, and corporate media websites.
Suspecting that this sort of behavior would greatly accelerate right after the lockdowns started, I've been saving to PDF numerous articles and studies.
there's a tiny bit more info on the vanished article(s) here:
https://thenationalpulse.com/2022/06/19/boris-and-carrie-johnson-forced-the-media-to-memory-hole-an-article-about-their-latest-scandal-now-its-trending-and-it-may-bring-his-government-down/
I find it interesting ol' Carrie has ties to Clinton and Biden. No conflicts of interest there..
Good old newspaper clippings! Don't libraries archive the print versions for a period of time, and are they still archived photographically, and not just digitally?
Likewise, all elections from top executives down to dogcatcher should be 100% paper, locked in secure, unhidden boxes, guarded by at least two independent human agencies 24/7/52, and never touching digital communication means. I am no Luddite; I love ever newer technology, but it will never be secure.
There can be no trust without a secure original *paper* trail.
They control your searches, delete articles, soon they will just shut you off. Linking as usual @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
Wayback has ONE capture of the MSN story.. for all the folks who read & reacted a single save!
https://web.archive.org/web/20220618133344/https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/boris-johnson-accused-of-trying-to-appoint-wife-carrie-to-c2-a3100k-taxpayer-funded-role-in-2018/ar-AAYBlVz